2018 (11) TMI 1146 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - appeal was rejected on a hyper-technical ground i.e. an apparent defect in the appeal format - Held that - The bare reading of the order would show that the Committee of Commissioners have permitted an appeal against the respondent/assessee for disputed duty to the extent of ₹ 28,07,089/- - However, an inadvertent mistake was committed in the appeal format with respect to the amount which was mentioned as ₹ 36,88,077. Ordinarily a judicial tribunal like CESTAT is expected to permit rectification of such an obvious error; that it instead chose to dismiss the appeal altogether is shocking to say the least. The impugned order and the order of rectification are hereby set aside - appeal against the respondent- Pymen Cable India Ltd. is hereby restored to its original place on the file.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Rectification of an apparent error in the appeal format by the Tribunal/CESTAT.

Analysis:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The High Court, in the present case, granted condonation of delay in filing the appeal after considering the reasons stated in the application. The delay was condoned, and the application was disposed of. The respondent's advocate accepted the notice on behalf of the respondent, indicating acknowledgment of the proceedings.

2. Rectification of an apparent error in the appeal format by the Tribunal/CESTAT:
The Court criticized the Tribunal/CESTAT for rejecting the appeal on a hyper-technical ground related to an error in the appeal format. Despite the Committee of Commissioners permitting an appeal against the respondent for a disputed duty amount, an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the amount led to the appeal's dismissal by the Tribunal. The Court expressed surprise at the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal instead of allowing rectification of the error, considering it an obvious mistake. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and the order of rectification, restoring the appeal against the respondent to its original place on the file. The Tribunal/CESTAT was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law, scheduling the next appearance of the parties before the Tribunal/CESTAT on a specified date.

This judgment highlights the importance of judicial bodies exercising discretion and leniency in rectifying apparent errors in legal documents to ensure justice and fairness in the adjudicatory process.